O B
United States
Mountainview
California
flag msg tools
designer
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
I'll start by quote from another thread, because I keep seeing a bunch of sentiments swirl around the forums over and over again: Combos are broken. No they're not. The game is balanced. No it's not. The theme is busted. No it isn't.

drscottkelly wrote:

I think that there is no broken combo in the game. There are tough combos but nothing broken. Any of them can be beat, including the Weyoun/Conditional Surrender one, Klingon BoF rolling 12 dice with rerolls and N'Garen/Drex, etc. It's just a matter of incorporating it into a build.

If it wasn't Weyoun/Conditional Surrender, it would be BoF builds. If it wasn't BoF, it'd be something else. There will always be one or two items in any game that are difficult, but if they weren't there people would complain about the next thing.


I've been thinking about why this is such a big deal here and why I'm even caught up in some of this and I've come to a new self realization which I wonder if anyone else find at all relevant?

It's a universal truth that almost any game will surprise you. You think you know how it *should* play and how *you* will kick ass at it. Then the game surprises you! You lost.

Some people say, "Wow, that's unexpected. I wonder how I can be awesome given my new understanding of the game?"

Other people's first reaction is to say "Wow, that's unexpected. How can I change the game so it conforms to my expectations?"

This is largely a matter of personal preference and style.

What's interesting about Attack Wing is that sometimes the game fails to meet folk's expectations mechanically: "Wow, that's an awesomely powerful combo, that's gonna require some serious thinking and maybe an equally clever combo to counter it," but sometimes it fails to meet folks's expectations thematically: "There's way too much Sulu on Romulan ships, I'd never do that 'cause SRSLY I want to enjoy my fandom, not play some whack fan-fiction!"

Both can be very emotional, and when the two combine it can lead to even more emotionally laden arguments where not all factors are visible, sometimes not even to the folks articulating a position.

Personally I want to play competitively, but I'm very flexible about the game surprising my expectations of how to play competitively. At first I thought it made more sense to get lots of Attack dice, and that limited maneuver templates made it hard to avoid two head on jousts so you'd need buff combos. I've been surprised to find quality of dice shenanigans, and firing arc avoidance is worth more.

In general I'm going to be accommodating of game mechanic surprises - though the closer a game is to a simulation the less I'll be tolerant of a mechanic which violates the essential nature (quiddity) of the subject matter. This is always tricky because even for the most hardcore wargame there is still a lot of disagreement and room for interpretation about the quiddity of the subject being simulated. Star Trek is a funny game because it's not a simulation, but the theme carries trappings of a simulation. The way the game seems to be evolving in play mechanic (maneuver and quality are viable) suits my gameplaying preferences and my personal headcannon of how Star Trek theme should work.

Thematically however I have an emotional problem with Attack Wing, which I've confused with a mechanical problem in the past. I want to play Federation ships and captains. I want to compete in the OPs. I'd be pretty happy just playing Federation ships with mixed captains and upgrades in a competitive mixed environment. However I'm not seeing how that's viable (Fed ships start too weak on attack power to make them a good foundation for a mixed fleet - only the D's 360 starts to compensate) and that makes me sad.

Now I have a choice.

I could champion changing the game - given the small community that's not priori a lost cause, though to be quite honest it doesn't appeal to me (if I did want to go down this route I'd likely try more honey and less vitriol/righteous indignation though).

I can give up playing competitively and focus on satisfying my thematic desires (not likely if you know me). I may find myself tempted into indulging in this occasionally though.

I can keep trying to play competitively and abandon my thematic hangups (Valdore, Dorsal, Tac Ofc + Enterprise-D, Engage, Tac Ofc fleet sounds pretty appealing).

I can keep trying to see if my cleverness and experience can find a way around my current predicament. I feel confident in my analysis, but perhaps I've missed something. Doing this will sign me up for frustration, but again maybe tilting at windmills without compromising my principles is the choice that will make me most happy in the end.

I'm not totally sure what I'm going to do (the Dark Side calls to me), but everybody faces a similar set of choices. All of them are OK, but it might make it less emotional if you're aware of what choice you're making and why...
9 
 Thumb up
1.25
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Xander Fulton
United States
Astoria
Oregon
flag msg tools
designer
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Well, there ARE plenty of competitive Fed lists. As you note, it's really about maneuver and quality-of-dice shens that make the Federation shine, and they have some of the best upgrades out there FOR those things. And one of the most important actions in the game - battle stations - is ALMOST their exclusive hallmark (yes, the Klingons have a couple ships with it, and Dominion as well - but EVERY Fed ship has it!)

I had some reasonable fun recently with:

Resource: Flagship Federation (10)

U.S.S Sutherland (26)
Christopher Pike (4)
Flagship (0)
Pavel Chekov (2)
Montgomery Scott (4)
Dmitri Valtane (2)
High Energy Sensor Sweep (5)
Ship SP: 43

U.S.S Excelsior (26)
Benjamin Sisko (4)
Mr. Spock (5)
Hikaru Sulu (3)
Quantum Torpedoes (6)
Transwarp Drive (3)
Ship SP: 47

...even without Picard or Dukat, you have good action economy due to the large number of free actions you get (Excelsior gets 'scan' free most the time, which triggers Spock's ability, so your action can be battle stations or using Sulu...depending on if you are attacking or defending that turn. Sutherland can disable a shield as a free action to get the scan token that activates Valtane, with a free Battle Station token from the flagship card, which lets you use Scotty as your regular action each turn. And now you have a BUNCH of re-rolls - Excelsior + Sulu is re-rolling its 3 defense dice from flagship proximity, Sisko gets to re-roll an attack, Valtane lets the Sutherland re-roll two attacks...all reducing the need to actually pull target locks, saving even more actions.)
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Larry DeStefano
United States
Bloomingburg
New York
flag msg tools
I think another issue which you pointed at is the whole OP/Causal issue. I do not play OP I am more a wargamer by inclination and my gaming group is as well. That being said I think the inhertant flexibility in this game helps. I (Including my group) play faction pure and we generate interesting scn and campaigns and really havent run into any major issues. The more clever of us will play the feds when the feds are fighting cloakers, but that just seems to be the nature of the game, and I wouldnt call this broken. In fact we just played a 160 point fed vs Rom fleet and it came down to the last ship for each fleet with the feds pulling out a win. I think when it comes to OP play it is a different style and mindset of play, it is more cutthroat but that is the nature of OP play and I really dont see a way around that. With OP play as long as all the players have access to the same material there shouldnt be any issues of fairness or game being broken. Now would 20 players all playing the same exact fleets be exciting or enjoyable???? I would not enjoy and hence I would not play it that way, but I feel that is the beauty of this game. I DONT HAVE TO!!! yeah (LOL). For eample in our group the ships with small attack values have been under played. Well we just make a scn were there is a cap on the max points a ship can be, (we never put one on upgrades yet) and that has worked out pretty good, (except for the Roms no middleweights, havent used gal gathong yet). Just my 2 cents

Live long and prosper.
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Eric B.
United States
East Lansing
Michigan
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
After a half year of OPs, I'm starting to discover that I personally find the game to be increasingly unthematic AND busted. And, again, this isn't sour grapes; I've won every single OP game I've played, save one.

The game has gone in directions I don't terribly enjoy, and what little bit of teasers have been thrown out for the Borg makes me think it will only get worse.


Once OP6 wraps up at the FLGS, I'm going to look into selling my collection. I'm hopeful the local scene will start doing more X-Wing, and given how the other members of our ST:AW have begun to often pine for X-Wing during the OP games, I'm thinking it may be a realistic hope.


This is just me. I'm not saying anyone who likes the game is wrong. I'm just saying that I'm finding that it doesn't really line-up with my own tastes and interests either thematically or game-play wise.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Leo Zappa
United States
Aliquippa
Pennsylvania
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
RogueThirteen wrote:
After a half year of OPs, I'm starting to discover that I personally find the game to be increasingly unthematic AND busted. And, again, this isn't sour grapes; I've won every single OP game I've played, save one.

The game has gone in directions I don't terribly enjoy, and what little bit of teasers have been thrown out for the Borg makes me think it will only get worse.


Once OP6 wraps up at the FLGS, I'm going to look into selling my collection. I'm hopeful the local scene will start doing more X-Wing, and given how the other members of our ST:AW have begun to often pine for X-Wing during the OP games, I'm thinking it may be a realistic hope.


This is just me. I'm not saying anyone who likes the game is wrong. I'm just saying that I'm finding that it doesn't really line-up with my own tastes and interests either thematically or game-play wise.


Just based on my recent reading of these various and sundry posts on OP play (as I haven't had and likely won't have the opportunity to do OP play myself), it really seems like the OP max-min unrestricted mixing power-gaming approach conflicts with immersive, thematic play. I've only played casually, and faction pure at that, and I and the people I play with have really felt immersed in the Star Trek theme. I'm left to wonder if OP play (again, with the unrestricted mixing, power-gaming approach) isn't actually a bad thing for the game in the long run. It certainly seems to run counter to the theme of the source material, so if someone is coming to the game as a hardcore Trek fan and finds themselves playing against people with fleets composed of such theme-breakers as Picard captaining a Dominion battleship with Klingon weapon upgrades and a Romulan crew, I can see why they'd shake their head and go home.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Boardgame Geek
msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb

Here's why power build cards are more powerful than they should be.



Jousting is bad.




Once the terrain isn't going to kill a players ship indiscriminately I think you'll see more interesting play.

As for the "Dreadnaught" play utilizing "broken" combo's between cards I can't blame anybody. Those prizes are very nice and there is no way to acquire them at a regular retail - non Ebay - price.

The extra point cost to have Picard (for example) on any ship is not enough of a penalty to prevent everybody from doing it.



Going forward for each match there should be more emphasis on completing map objectives for more varied play.
5 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Larry DeStefano
United States
Bloomingburg
New York
flag msg tools
From the threads I see popping up the game seems to be falling into 2 camps those who play OP and those that dont. The ones who dont play OP (I'm one) seem to have the fewest issues. Even what issues there are seem minor and easy to correct. The OP players seem to have deeper issues. From a wargamimg point the vast majority of combat games designed are never completely balanced. Most of the time I'm happy with a 60-40 breakdown and I would call that design a success. However with OP play you have to have 50-50 to be fair. So in that enviroment I would see the tendancy for the fleets to start looking similar as all the real competitive players strive to win. Which is normal and expected. This made lead to staleness and turning off players who are into it for the theme of the game.
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Boardgame Geek
msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
hadrian132 wrote:
From the threads I see popping up the game seems to be falling into 2 camps those who play OP and those that dont. The ones who dont play OP (I'm one) seem to have the fewest issues. Even what issues there are seem minor and easy to correct. The OP players seem to have deeper issues. From a wargamimg point the vast majority of combat games designed are never completely balanced. Most of the time I'm happy with a 60-40 breakdown and I would call that design a success. However with OP play you have to have 50-50 to be fair. So in that enviroment I would see the tendancy for the fleets to start looking similar as all the real competitive players strive to win. Which is normal and expected. This made lead to staleness and turning off players who are into it for the theme of the game.


Exactly this.

As a casual player as well I can only buy the cheaper OP items off Ebay (big shout out to tellerium, you are awesome!) which is okay as the only things I've wanted are 1 of each Attack Fighter Squadron and two sets of Flagship cards.

However, after watching OP events on Youtube and reading forum posts my above image of the table is pretty much what I've seen 90% of the time.




If you remove maneuvering from this game it turns into Cards + Dice, so throw a lot of dice any way you can and if your opponent can roll so many counter dice than you're good to go.

I don't think anybody can tell me they wouldn't try hard to win this:



I would.



Also this model shows that Wizkids can produce something very close to X-Wing quality which only bodes well for us going forward.

I repaint all my ships (as seen on BGG) but that DS9 is very nicely detailed and washed.

--- Not trying to derail the thread with the DS9 model gushing.

7 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Evan
United States
California
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
adorablerocket wrote:
I'll start by quote from another thread, because I keep seeing a bunch of sentiments swirl around the forums over and over again: Combos are broken. No they're not. The game is balanced. No it's not. The theme is busted. No it isn't.

drscottkelly wrote:

I think that there is no broken combo in the game. There are tough combos but nothing broken. Any of them can be beat, including the Weyoun/Conditional Surrender one, Klingon BoF rolling 12 dice with rerolls and N'Garen/Drex, etc. It's just a matter of incorporating it into a build.

If it wasn't Weyoun/Conditional Surrender, it would be BoF builds. If it wasn't BoF, it'd be something else. There will always be one or two items in any game that are difficult, but if they weren't there people would complain about the next thing.


I've been thinking about why this is such a big deal here and why I'm even caught up in some of this and I've come to a new self realization which I wonder if anyone else find at all relevant?

It's a universal truth that almost any game will surprise you. You think you know how it *should* play and how *you* will kick ass at it. Then the game surprises you! You lost.

Some people say, "Wow, that's unexpected. I wonder how I can be awesome given my new understanding of the game?"

Other people's first reaction is to say "Wow, that's unexpected. How can I change the game so it conforms to my expectations?"

This is largely a matter of personal preference and style.

What's interesting about Attack Wing is that sometimes the game fails to meet folk's expectations mechanically: "Wow, that's an awesomely powerful combo, that's gonna require some serious thinking and maybe an equally clever combo to counter it," but sometimes it fails to meet folks's expectations thematically: "There's way too much Sulu on Romulan ships, I'd never do that 'cause SRSLY I want to enjoy my fandom, not play some whack fan-fiction!"

Both can be very emotional, and when the two combine it can lead to even more emotionally laden arguments where not all factors are visible, sometimes not even to the folks articulating a position.

Personally I want to play competitively, but I'm very flexible about the game surprising my expectations of how to play competitively. At first I thought it made more sense to get lots of Attack dice, and that limited maneuver templates made it hard to avoid two head on jousts so you'd need buff combos. I've been surprised to find quality of dice shenanigans, and firing arc avoidance is worth more.

In general I'm going to be accommodating of game mechanic surprises - though the closer a game is to a simulation the less I'll be tolerant of a mechanic which violates the essential nature (quiddity) of the subject matter. This is always tricky because even for the most hardcore wargame there is still a lot of disagreement and room for interpretation about the quiddity of the subject being simulated. Star Trek is a funny game because it's not a simulation, but the theme carries trappings of a simulation. The way the game seems to be evolving in play mechanic (maneuver and quality are viable) suits my gameplaying preferences and my personal headcannon of how Star Trek theme should work.

Thematically however I have an emotional problem with Attack Wing, which I've confused with a mechanical problem in the past. I want to play Federation ships and captains. I want to compete in the OPs. I'd be pretty happy just playing Federation ships with mixed captains and upgrades in a competitive mixed environment. However I'm not seeing how that's viable (Fed ships start too weak on attack power to make them a good foundation for a mixed fleet - only the D's 360 starts to compensate) and that makes me sad.

Now I have a choice.

I could champion changing the game - given the small community that's not priori a lost cause, though to be quite honest it doesn't appeal to me (if I did want to go down this route I'd likely try more honey and less vitriol/righteous indignation though).

I can give up playing competitively and focus on satisfying my thematic desires (not likely if you know me). I may find myself tempted into indulging in this occasionally though.

I can keep trying to play competitively and abandon my thematic hangups (Valdore, Dorsal, Tac Ofc + Enterprise-D, Engage, Tac Ofc fleet sounds pretty appealing).

I can keep trying to see if my cleverness and experience can find a way around my current predicament. I feel confident in my analysis, but perhaps I've missed something. Doing this will sign me up for frustration, but again maybe tilting at windmills without compromising my principles is the choice that will make me most happy in the end.

I'm not totally sure what I'm going to do (the Dark Side calls to me), but everybody faces a similar set of choices. All of them are OK, but it might make it less emotional if you're aware of what choice you're making and why...


Sorry for the huge quote box, but I really want to thank you for all of this. There's always been a fair amount of heated debate around here, but I've been increasingly baffled and annoyed at the tone that it's taken lately. Pretty much every thread has someone yelling about how the game has been permanently ruined because of AOs (?!) or because Feds are too weak or Feds are unstoppable or because quantity of attack dice/quality of attack dice/quantity of defense dice have led to degenerate gameplay, or because the upcoming waves are going to wreck everything, or because the upcoming waves can't possibly alter the status quo, or because everyone else is completely wrong about theme, cross-factioning, or what constitutes power gaming. Show me someone who's announced their impending QQ for any given reason, and I'll show you five who've announced the same for the exact opposite reason.

I haven't been able to make sense of any of this, but I think you hit the nail on the head: people just have very strong antecedent opinions about what the game should be like, and they're unwilling to adapt, or even examine the reasons why they hold these opinions.
And yeah, I don't doubt that a lot of it has to do with our underlying views about what Trek itself is or ought to be. But it'd be a shame if people let those preconceptions keep them from enjoying a really great game.
7 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Dr Vulcan
msg tools
mbmb
I first want to say this game is great, and the community for the most part is fantastic as well =)

I also find that even though I may be concerned that some combo or some issue will come up, really in playing I do not see the issues as much as I think I would (and far less than some posts here may lead you to think).

Sure, when you allow mixed faction ships you can have some silly builds, but it seems with each release / OP that 'op' build changes drastically and many times is well countered by the next OP event.

Thank you for posting this thread =)
5 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Larry DeStefano
United States
Bloomingburg
New York
flag msg tools
kobold47 wrote:
adorablerocket wrote:
I'll start by quote from another thread, because I keep seeing a bunch of sentiments swirl around the forums over and over again: Combos are broken. No they're not. The game is balanced. No it's not. The theme is busted. No it isn't.

drscottkelly wrote:

I think that there is no broken combo in the game. There are tough combos but nothing broken. Any of them can be beat, including the Weyoun/Conditional Surrender one, Klingon BoF rolling 12 dice with rerolls and N'Garen/Drex, etc. It's just a matter of incorporating it into a build.

If it wasn't Weyoun/Conditional Surrender, it would be BoF builds. If it wasn't BoF, it'd be something else. There will always be one or two items in any game that are difficult, but if they weren't there people would complain about the next thing.


I've been thinking about why this is such a big deal here and why I'm even caught up in some of this and I've come to a new self realization which I wonder if anyone else find at all relevant?

It's a universal truth that almost any game will surprise you. You think you know how it *should* play and how *you* will kick ass at it. Then the game surprises you! You lost.

Some people say, "Wow, that's unexpected. I wonder how I can be awesome given my new understanding of the game?"

Other people's first reaction is to say "Wow, that's unexpected. How can I change the game so it conforms to my expectations?"

This is largely a matter of personal preference and style.

What's interesting about Attack Wing is that sometimes the game fails to meet folk's expectations mechanically: "Wow, that's an awesomely powerful combo, that's gonna require some serious thinking and maybe an equally clever combo to counter it," but sometimes it fails to meet folks's expectations thematically: "There's way too much Sulu on Romulan ships, I'd never do that 'cause SRSLY I want to enjoy my fandom, not play some whack fan-fiction!"

Both can be very emotional, and when the two combine it can lead to even more emotionally laden arguments where not all factors are visible, sometimes not even to the folks articulating a position.

Personally I want to play competitively, but I'm very flexible about the game surprising my expectations of how to play competitively. At first I thought it made more sense to get lots of Attack dice, and that limited maneuver templates made it hard to avoid two head on jousts so you'd need buff combos. I've been surprised to find quality of dice shenanigans, and firing arc avoidance is worth more.

In general I'm going to be accommodating of game mechanic surprises - though the closer a game is to a simulation the less I'll be tolerant of a mechanic which violates the essential nature (quiddity) of the subject matter. This is always tricky because even for the most hardcore wargame there is still a lot of disagreement and room for interpretation about the quiddity of the subject being simulated. Star Trek is a funny game because it's not a simulation, but the theme carries trappings of a simulation. The way the game seems to be evolving in play mechanic (maneuver and quality are viable) suits my gameplaying preferences and my personal headcannon of how Star Trek theme should work.

Thematically however I have an emotional problem with Attack Wing, which I've confused with a mechanical problem in the past. I want to play Federation ships and captains. I want to compete in the OPs. I'd be pretty happy just playing Federation ships with mixed captains and upgrades in a competitive mixed environment. However I'm not seeing how that's viable (Fed ships start too weak on attack power to make them a good foundation for a mixed fleet - only the D's 360 starts to compensate) and that makes me sad.

Now I have a choice.

I could champion changing the game - given the small community that's not priori a lost cause, though to be quite honest it doesn't appeal to me (if I did want to go down this route I'd likely try more honey and less vitriol/righteous indignation though).

I can give up playing competitively and focus on satisfying my thematic desires (not likely if you know me). I may find myself tempted into indulging in this occasionally though.

I can keep trying to play competitively and abandon my thematic hangups (Valdore, Dorsal, Tac Ofc + Enterprise-D, Engage, Tac Ofc fleet sounds pretty appealing).

I can keep trying to see if my cleverness and experience can find a way around my current predicament. I feel confident in my analysis, but perhaps I've missed something. Doing this will sign me up for frustration, but again maybe tilting at windmills without compromising my principles is the choice that will make me most happy in the end.

I'm not totally sure what I'm going to do (the Dark Side calls to me), but everybody faces a similar set of choices. All of them are OK, but it might make it less emotional if you're aware of what choice you're making and why...


Sorry for the huge quote box, but I really want to thank you for all of this. There's always been a fair amount of heated debate around here, but I've been increasingly baffled and annoyed at the tone that it's taken lately. Pretty much every thread has someone yelling about how the game has been permanently ruined because of AOs (?!) or because Feds are too weak or Feds are unstoppable or because quantity of attack dice/quality of attack dice/quantity of defense dice have led to degenerate gameplay, or because the upcoming waves are going to wreck everything, or because the upcoming waves can't possibly alter the status quo, or because everyone else is completely wrong about theme, cross-factioning, or what constitutes power gaming. Show me someone who's announced their impending QQ for any given reason, and I'll show you five who've announced the same for the exact opposite reason.

I haven't been able to make sense of any of this, but I think you hit the nail on the head: people just have very strong antecedent opinions about what the game should be like, and they're unwilling to adapt, or even examine the reasons why they hold these opinions.
And yeah, I don't doubt that a lot of it has to do with our underlying views about what Trek itself is or ought to be. But it'd be a shame if people let those preconceptions keep them from enjoying a really great game.


I would go back to my earlier post. For the causal I still dont see an issue. As for OP the very nature of competition will tend to be bring out the winners. Sooooooo if there is some winning or odds skewwing (Remember in Vegas the gambling house has only a few points advantage on the craps table and that makes them millions) advantage to be found it should come out. If someone had the time it would would be interesting to see a survey of the winning fleets and cards that were used by the players who have won these fights, a real statiscal survey could answer some heated debate questions.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Evan
United States
California
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
hadrian132 wrote:
I would go back to my earlier post. For the causal I still dont see an issue. As for OP the very nature of competition will tend to be bring out the winners. Sooooooo if there is some winning or odds skewwing (Remember in Vegas the gambling house has only a few points advantage on the craps table and that makes them millions) advantage to be found it should come out. If someone had the time it would would be interesting to see a survey of the winning fleets and cards that were used by the players who have won these fights, a real statiscal survey could answer some heated debate questions.


It's true that OPs tend to create a very different climate than casual play, but the game is still so new--and, as docvulcan says, so dynamic--that I don't think that the prospect of winning a cool station will make a difference in terms of whether or not the game's been solved. If it did, we'd be seeing a lot more homogeneity and a lot more consensus about winning strategies--instead, there have only been a few marginal instances of this so far, and these have usually been the result of groupthink or local meta dynamics. ...I mean, remember how everyone used to think that Klingon jousts were the end-all and be-all? And after that it was cloaked mines? And then Fed strike forces? Y'all are great, but seriously, we're all just shooting in the dark here.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Bwian, just
United States
Longmont
Colorado
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
hadrian132 wrote:
If someone had the time it would would be interesting to see a survey of the winning fleets and cards that were used by the players who have won these fights, a real statiscal survey could answer some heated debate questions.

Our venue still has the paperwork for all 5 OPs, including the fleet build sheets. Would it make sense to create a thread of the winning (or top 2, or whatever) fleets from each OP? And if so, where would it go?
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Larry DeStefano
United States
Bloomingburg
New York
flag msg tools
Bwian wrote:
hadrian132 wrote:
If someone had the time it would would be interesting to see a survey of the winning fleets and cards that were used by the players who have won these fights, a real statiscal survey could answer some heated debate questions.

Our venue still has the paperwork for all 5 OPs, including the fleet build sheets. Would it make sense to create a thread of the winning (or top 2, or whatever) fleets from each OP? And if so, where would it go?


For now I would say post them and some one who wants can use the data!!!!
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Cletus Van Damme

Illinois
msg tools
mbmbmb
MaximumDT wrote:

Here's why power build cards are more powerful than they should be.



Jousting is bad.




Once the terrain isn't going to kill a players ship indiscriminately I think you'll see more interesting play.

As for the "Dreadnaught" play utilizing "broken" combo's between cards I can't blame anybody. Those prizes are very nice and there is no way to acquire them at a regular retail - non Ebay - price.

The extra point cost to have Picard (for example) on any ship is not enough of a penalty to prevent everybody from doing it.



Going forward for each match there should be more emphasis on completing map objectives for more varied play.


Yes this exactly. Why would I ever fly a non min/maxed cloak list when I have to constantly fight against poorly designed OP scenarios.

Was there a single OP 5 match anywhere that wasn't either 1) cram all the OWPs as much as possible on the far side of the map or, 2) mutually agree to destroy them rounds 1-3 then fight each other as normal?
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Larry DeStefano
United States
Bloomingburg
New York
flag msg tools
kobold47 wrote:
hadrian132 wrote:
I would go back to my earlier post. For the causal I still dont see an issue. As for OP the very nature of competition will tend to be bring out the winners. Sooooooo if there is some winning or odds skewwing (Remember in Vegas the gambling house has only a few points advantage on the craps table and that makes them millions) advantage to be found it should come out. If someone had the time it would would be interesting to see a survey of the winning fleets and cards that were used by the players who have won these fights, a real statiscal survey could answer some heated debate questions.


It's true that OPs tend to create a very different climate than casual play, but the game is still so new--and, as docvulcan says, so dynamic--that I don't think that the prospect of winning a cool station will make a difference in terms of whether or not the game's been solved. If it did, we'd be seeing a lot more homogeneity and a lot more consensus about winning strategies--instead, there have only been a few marginal instances of this so far, and these have usually been the result of groupthink or local meta dynamics. ...I mean, remember how everyone used to think that Klingon jousts were the end-all and be-all? And after that it was cloaked mines? And then Fed strike forces? Y'all are great, but seriously, we're all just shooting in the dark here.


I didn't say there is a winning combo, but I'm not say there isn't either...I don't know. I say that with causal play it doesn't really matter as much, unless the game was broken beyond repair, in OP play it does matter even if there is one definitive combo that would give you an edge (Not a sure thing) by say 6 wins out of 10 that could then be a problem. It would take some one with better math skills then me to do the study.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
O B
United States
Mountainview
California
flag msg tools
designer
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Shazbot wrote:

Was there a single OP 5 match anywhere that wasn't either 1) cram all the OWPs as much as possible on the far side of the map or, 2) mutually agree to destroy them rounds 1-3 then fight each other as normal?


I think there were four tables at OP5 last night. From what I saw each of them in all three rounds consisted of 3)Trying to use OWP placement and destruction order to gain an edge on firing arcs or simple rounds of numbers of rounds of attacks a target must endure.

So... that's at least 12 games.
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
charles skrobis
United States
Massachusetts
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
First and foremost, I play OP events, but lots more in casual and side things. My preferred play style and build is actually random, ranging from the overly effective, to purposefully playing things no one else wants to, to getting things to play in ways they wouldn't normally. (The other day, Sisko on the TOS enterprise did pretty well actually, flagship Vo carried as a high damage ship using additional weapons array, and the battleship scenario is a pain to beat from the federation player side.)

I do agree with some of the posts and sentiments that have been going around, but much of what I find for the OP events really gets amplified by talks with warmachine friends. So in the game where there is space exploration and peaceful contact with alien races as the source theme, every event is based on death match with more things to shoot at you. I can't say how many times I've heard ideas for having non-combat based victory conditions, or even the great matches that took place in asteriod belts if not the badlands. I think the current OP scenarios might just need a few other options then violently destroying your opponent every time.

As for thematic and factions, one of the questions I keep asking, is why they can't be mixed right now? Why can't the romulans clone Piccard, train him to preform much like the real piccard but code name him Shinzon, and use him? What secrets do people like the romulan commander or Gul Dukat know, that can't be taught to another up and coming captain for someone else? Can't I just put a picture of a different character from the show, with a different name, and use them as appropriate, while paying extra for the effort to get them to learn those tricks? Lastly, why can't weapons and tech be exchanged, like how klingons were putting cloaked mines out in DS9 season 4, but yet klingon "faction pure" can't do something they did in the show? I guess I just don't understand massive parts of pure faction arguments when I can just declare that it's not piccard, it's laqutis of borg, much less the alternate realities down to arguing the shatner verse, which the other day I saw a book about him and 7 of 9, and I think he still has the defiant that he renamed the enterprise.

I have more of a problem playing similar builds than I do shifting to something new, unheard of, and potentially obnoxious. (Romulans the other day, and just cycling attack prevention cards, and cloaked mines with OWPs won the battles for me again the alpha strike builds, with tankier Romulans hurting me back when neither of us could hurt each other that much.)

At this point I feel I should point out how the meta is both a tool and a crutch. Currently a lot revolves solely around alpha strike or beating the alpha strike. I think it's better when there's someone who can bring things to light that no one expects or remembers.

To prove the point, I'm currently looking into putting the new 7 skill weyoun on a flagship TOS enterprise, so that it has 7 crew slots. Then I fill them all with red shirts, likely borrowing all the copies me and my friends have, just to see how well that works by throwing wave after wave of red shirts at the problem.

(I also don't want too much about this getting out, But I intend to start the Borg event off with a build using a Miranda class, captained by Sisko, with a red shirt that has a picture of Jenifer Sisko over it, cause it'll be Wolf 359 one way or another. Even if I win nothing with that, it'll amuse me greatly to be doing it.)

I don't know how to stop complaints, or what the way everyone prefers to play is all the time. I know I like to just build something crazy with little forethought, and run with it to see how things work. I get most annoyed when people tell me I can't try the crazy nonsense I want to, especially when it's not very effective, but I can live with stuff like ship purity, or faction pure to some extent, because that actually takes less planning then mixed factions typically do.

If you're still looking to do faction pure federation against mixed factions, it isn't too hard, but it takes forethought based on what you're dealing with. I still recommend Geordi Laforge, even if nobody ever likes him, but he works great based on battle station coverstion with him, and any level of 180+ degrees of firing. (Though this might just be based on how much damage I did with the Reliant using Styles with a positron beam and defiant worf, just to punish them for getting to range 1, and stop them from coming about afterwards, stopping jousting from continuing past where I wanted it to. Cause turn maneuvers are wonderful.)

Oh well, no matter what you decide in the end, I wish you good luck.
4 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Joel Stair
United States
Macon Area
Georgia
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Me and my brother play at a venue and it suck losing to him and another guy all the time. But I love the game I learn so much I dont think anything is broken. And if I want a DS9 I will save my money and by one but I have a playmate DS9 and it is the same size to the T. Because my brother won 1 all in all I love this game I havent paid this much on a game in a long time so I know I love it.
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Kenn Mikos
msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
Shazbot wrote:

Was there a single OP 5 match anywhere that wasn't either 1) cram all the OWPs as much as possible on the far side of the map or, 2) mutually agree to destroy them rounds 1-3 then fight each other as normal?


In all three of my OP5 matches, I had to make a choice between destroying an OWP that I would be flying near in future turns, or leaving it alone because it was in range of an opponent's ship this turn. I actually thought at the time that it was nice to have a strategic choice to make regarding them, since they've never been destructible before...
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
O B
United States
Mountainview
California
flag msg tools
designer
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
XanderF wrote:
Well, there ARE plenty of competitive Fed lists.


charles_skrobis wrote:

If you're still looking to do faction pure federation against mixed factions, it isn't too hard...


Sorry, I didn't mean to whine about the Feds. They're not pansies. I've been playing very effective pure Fed lists for a 5 OPs. I've shrugged off Barrage of Fires and Projected Stasis fields to win. I've hunted down Dominion Battleships with extreme prejudice. I've Alpha striked D'Deridexes.

That said, It's my opinion that for a 100 pt build the three best ships to build around are the Valdore, the Koranak, and the Ent-D, and I'm not sure I'd want to start with the big-D or follow with another Fed ship if I was going for the best maneuver, arc, and damage output balance.

charles_skrobis wrote:

To prove the point, I'm currently looking into putting the new 7 skill weyoun on a flagship TOS enterprise, so that it has 7 crew slots. Then I fill them all with red shirts, likely borrowing all the copies me and my friends have, just to see how well that works by throwing wave after wave of red shirts at the problem.


I took a Constitution Enterprise Flagship and 3 cheat deaths. I think I regularly absorbed more than 7 extra points of damage above my hull+shields before dying, because of course the overkill gets discarded. It was fun and I was thrilled to finally fly Kirk on the classic Enterprise, but ultimately it's not a goto build.

charles_skrobis wrote:

So in the game where there is space exploration and peaceful contact with alien races as the source theme, every event is based on death match with more things to shoot at you. I can't say how many times I've heard ideas for having non-combat based victory conditions, or even the great matches that took place in asteriod belts if not the badlands. I think the current OP scenarios might just need a few other options then violently destroying your opponent every time.

[...]

(I also don't want too much about this getting out, But I intend to start the Borg event off with a build using a Miranda class, captained by Sisko, with a red shirt that has a picture of Jenifer Sisko over it, cause it'll be Wolf 359 one way or another. Even if I win nothing with that, it'll amuse me greatly to be doing it.)


I love all this! Wish we could play sometime!
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Ted Kay
United States
Massachusetts
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
I agree with the sentiment that there is a nebulous range of responses to having expectations not meet the reality of the game. At the end of the day, it's up to individuals to decide how they're going to respond to the outcomes they receive playing the game.

I do think there should be at least as much focus on casual play as there is on competitive play. I think anyone suffering from tournament burnout would have a blast with the scenarios included in the expansions. The other night, I played the Battleship scenario with my roommate, and we were tired and a little cranky at each other. I managed to outmaneuver him and had the win condition locked up as the Federation player. Then I transwarped just a ship base or so less than I needed to from my starting area, directly into his front arc, and exploded spectacularly in one of the worst defeats I've ever had. I practically snatched defeat from the jaws of victory.

I think we both cracked up for a good minute or two. Wouldn't trade the experience.

YMMV, but I think you should play how you want to play, however that may be. I'd discourage anyone from trying to tell you how to play, whether that's mixed faction or pure faction. Make the decision based on what makes you happy. If you're not having fun, you're missing the point.

I think Charles hit everything else I could have to say very nicely on the head there.

adorablerocket wrote:
I love all this! Wish we could play sometime!


GenCon 2014, people? thumbsup
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Jonathan M D Thomas
United States
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
FortuneFavorTheBold wrote:
I agree with the sentiment that there is a nebulous range of responses to having expectations not meet the reality of the game. At the end of the day, it's up to individuals to decide how they're going to respond to the outcomes they receive playing the game.

I do think there should be at least as much focus on casual play as there is on competitive play. I think anyone suffering from tournament burnout would have a blast with the scenarios included in the expansions. The other night, I played the Battleship scenario with my roommate, and we were tired and a little cranky at each other. I managed to outmaneuver him and had the win condition locked up as the Federation player. Then I transwarped just a ship base or so less than I needed to from my starting area, directly into his front arc, and exploded spectacularly in one of the worst defeats I've ever had. I practically snatched defeat from the jaws of victory.

I think we both cracked up for a good minute or two. Wouldn't trade the experience.

YMMV, but I think you should play how you want to play, however that may be. I'd discourage anyone from trying to tell you how to play, whether that's mixed faction or pure faction. Make the decision based on what makes you happy. If you're not having fun, you're missing the point.

I think Charles hit everything else I could have to say very nicely on the head there.

adorablerocket wrote:
I love all this! Wish we could play sometime!


GenCon 2014, people? thumbsup


People need to get in this mode more often. When we play on non OP weeks, we often pull out the missions and play fun thematic fleets. When we play normal games we set theme aside and its anything goes.

Missions seem to be seriously underplayed by the community.
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
charles skrobis
United States
Massachusetts
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
To be honest, I feel like the federation is going to become much more needed as the borg hit, because rear arcs with torpedoes are looking a bit better than dorsal weapons array.

Now, to add context to that, I've been trying to figure out the best way to play the borg, based on the few images I've seen, and the audio recording from Andrew Parks.

So given the borg sphere is 40 points, in a 40 point single ship match as of what we have now, how well does it stack up?

Given he used the word spin action, and there's a new symbol on the action bar, I took that to be the spin maneuver, and decided it worked best at 90 degree angles rather than choose your direction, so I put a template next to the base like with a sensor echo, and rotate the ship base so that the notch fits, given that the borg sphere has the same ship base as everything else. So far in trials, it can take a hit pretty well at 14 health, but the real advantage seems to come if it can make 4 forwards or greater.

So seeing as it can only go in 2 direction straight each turn, and can spend an action to change that, turn maneuvers against them can cost actions. Though the real strength I'm feeling so far, is that when up against romulans and dominion, if they can get out of arc, they can keep it that way for a while. So dorsal weapons array goes up in value, as well as larger turn maneuvers, and rear arcs for torpedoes. The klingons don't work as well when they need to recloak, target lock, or reload torpedoes, so action economy is becoming a problem for them. So right now, the enterprise-d is looking like the ship of choice for fighting the borg sphere in the not to distant future, given my test runs so far.

I think the excelsior is also a decent choice if you have transwarp as an option, or the defiant for good hard turns with a rear arc. But so far the borg sphere has been interesting to plan for.

The cube I still think uses the base like with the scimitar, and I'm already experimenting with putting that at angles to make it go in weird directions.

I'm really excited for what is to come next, and trying to figure out exactly how to play it and beat it, at least a month before I even know what I'm talking about, but so far it's been interesting. (The borg hate asteriod fields so much because of the lack of turns with angles or curves to go around, and give the sphere needs actions to spin for its turns, I both do and do not want to see the obstacle laden board vs the borg.)

So how is this relivent and not just more off topic ramblings?
I feel that the more I see come out from the game and the more I learn, the more it changes my view on older stuff, like how I didn't understand Muon feedback wave, until the Koranak came out, and then i realize just how many ships break if they used their fastest speed on the turn I gave them the token.

So for now, i'm going to probably spend till OP 6 messing around with nonsense, like mobilie DS9 token that I'll just call the Fesarius, can see if kirk can his TOS crew can throw together enough of a Constitution class to get through its shields, and then beam over next round. Not sure how that'll go with DS9 stats, cause I may need to buff it. But that plus more borg theory test will be great fun.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Roy Stephens
United States
San Jose
California
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Just my $0.02 based on what I have seen in the events I have been running..

So, we finished up the first of the two Dominion War events yesterday. Between OP 5 and OP 6, apparently my group has been reading these types of threads on here as one regular announced he wouldn't be playing any more due to "min-maxing" (yet had no issue sticking around and watching others play and kibbitzing). This led to two others saying they were probably done with OP play as well for the same reasons. One (a pure Klingon player) because they feel the "Federation Power Builds" make it impossible to run anything else. Another (a pure Fed player) is probably quitting after Tholian Web and Arena because he feels the Borg are going to be overpowered and will dominate the meta going forward. Another player was a no-show but the rumor was he had sold all of his stuff and was getting out for similar reasons.

We had the lowest turnout since OP 1 for this event and barely covered the kit cost (which was fortunate, as the event would not have been run if it hadn't been covered). I think part of that was due to the higher entry fee due to the higher kit cost, while many players didn't feel like paying a higher fee f they weren't in the hunt for DS9. As it turned out, we had 4 players who had a shot at it. One (second place in stnadings) was out sick, sadly. The other 3 showed and it was actually VERY close, where the 3rd place overall player was able to squeak out a sweep and actually win DS9 by 1 point.

There was no "go-to" build that everyone was running. The champion did fly a mixed fleet of Valdore with Picard and a pure Dominion Koranak (i think). Others were flying mostly pure-builds, which several have been doing since day one.

Anyway, what I find fascinating is that the issues reported by my players and the folks on here are so varied. Feds/Klingons/Dominion/Romulans are too strong/weak... mixed factions are overpowered, pure builds cannot win, pure Feds are unstoppable, min-maxers are ruining it, etc...

Now, my point is this: If we all have access to the same things (other than the prize ships and their upgrades, which, while cool, have NOT dominated OP play at all and have barely even been used), how is the game unbalanced? This isn't Magic The Gathering where a player can get some ultra-rare card of awesomeness that no one can beat. It is a non-blind, collectible format, no different than games like Warmachine or Warhammer.

Going forward, how would you "fix" the game? I do agree that the OP events having obstacles that attack was a bit much, since it happened in 5 out of 6 events. I would suggest that WK maybe tone that down a bit, and give players more room to fly (asteroids are fine). But, as far as the actual fleet composition, I know that a lot of players detest mixing factions, but, that is the ultimate balance. Every faction has access to everything. Perhaps WK could consider increasing the SP penalty for adding out of faction upgrades. I don't know.

I just know that I have been running 2 OP events a month and don't even get to play the game, so I had already decided to hand off one of the events to someone else so that I could participate, but now I fear that the naysayers may wind up convincing enough others to join them that the OP events and game itself may wind up fading away before I ever get the chance.

Anyway, that's all. I just wanted to get my thoughts out as I really love this game and do not want to see it go away... certainly not before my beloved Voyager comes out.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
1 , 2  Next »   | 
Front Page | Welcome | Contact | Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Advertise | Support BGG | Feeds RSS
Geekdo, BoardGameGeek, the Geekdo logo, and the BoardGameGeek logo are trademarks of BoardGameGeek, LLC.